The Old Master
come and take it.
you sir, are well with in your right to do so.I disagree completely.
you sir, are well with in your right to do so.I disagree completely.
I heard sully sold his third car but he still owns a bike. Mindblowntrade a player like Sprong, but somehow keep garbage like Sheahan on the roster.....*mindblowngif*
I heard sully sold his third car but he still owns a bike. Mindblown
What's the point then?like all the other points in this thread, you miss this one too...
Well played. lolHad no idea Sprong has so many close relatives in the Pittsburgh area.
What's the point then?
So I'll amend my comment. Sully sold his third car shortly after buying a bike.Basically, Our coach/gm gave a chance to a player who had 0 goal in 79 games on one of the worst teams in the league but they didn't have it in them to give a 21 year old kid with a rocket shot who was one of the best AHL players last year, a chance.
Still way different than having a legitimate need at scoring line RW. You can't possibly think the opportunity for that role here and with the ducks is the same regardless of coach.
What if Rust outproduces Sprong the rest of the season and continues to do so next year? At what point can we say that the Penguins didn't have the top 9 spot for Sprong and JR was able to get best value out of him before things went bad for both parties? I'm not sure I believe it yet, but it's certainly possible.
Remember, Rust doesn't want to be a 4th liner either so if you give Sprong the spot Rust had previously earned, you risk alienating a player that pretty valuable to the Pens identity over time.
This is all hypothetical, but most of us logically thought it was just a matter of time until Rust started putting things together again. Coincidentally, since Sprong was shipped out, Rust is proving he is a top 9 winger again and has scored MORE goals than Sprong has in similar opportunities.
Neat. Now he is and is succeeding what exactly is your point?
Do you just need confirmation you were right that Sprong would score goals in a top six role? You were right. I think most of us agreed that could happen, it didn’t happen here because of Hornqvist and Kessel. If the Ducks had Hornqvist and Kessel do you think they are searching for a top six RW? If we had Pouliot or Prow up here succeeding with our D do you think we are searching for a D?
Sprong was treated a certain way here. We have been doing very well since moving him and likely will not regret the trade if MP continues to play and grow as a D.
I don’t really get what the Sprong fans want. Your boy is succeeding and so is the trade piece we got for him.
I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.
We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.
That wouldn't affect anything AFAIC. For some reason, people continue to push this false scenario where Sprong being given a legit chance in the top 9 somehow necessitates Rust to the 4th line forever. As long as Sprong were producing with those opportunities, we could have come out for the better.
How about we just try Rust on the line where he eventually broke out about 15 games earlier until he looks like he's seen a puck before? Would that have been so hard? Does that mean Rust's a 4th liner for the rest of his days as a Penguin, or that a vet get can demoted for awhile when he's playing like garbage? If we had done only that much, then maybe we wouldn't have had Rust wasting a top 9 spot for so long while losses mounted, had to resort to Sheahan as a top 9 RW when injuries hit, or needlessly tank the value of our best goal scoring prospect.
Simple. We tanked the value of, then traded an asset that could have been extremely valuable to us going forward for no good reason.
Pettersson's value is not the same, and I'd take issue with the idea that we've been doing "very well" since Sprong was moved. Over the last 3 games we got worked by the Hawks, beat a woefully undermanned Bruins team, then squeaked by the Kings after blowing a 2 goal lead. It's been a rollercoaster - we've not been doing "very well" relative to our standard of previous years, or IMO what we'd have been capable of with the Sprong we're seeing in Anaheim with one of Crosby, Malkin, or Brassard.
I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.
We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.
That wouldn't affect anything AFAIC. For some reason, people continue to push this false scenario where Sprong being given a legit chance in the top 9 somehow necessitates Rust to the 4th line forever. As long as Sprong were producing with those opportunities, we could have come out for the better.
How about we just try Rust on the line where he eventually broke out about 15 games earlier until he looks like he's seen a puck before? Would that have been so hard? Does that mean Rust's a 4th liner for the rest of his days as a Penguin, or that a vet get can demoted for awhile when he's playing like garbage? If we had done only that much, then maybe we wouldn't have had Rust wasting a top 9 spot for so long while losses mounted, had to resort to Sheahan as a top 9 RW when injuries hit, or needlessly tank the value of our best goal scoring prospect.
Simple. We tanked the value of, then traded an asset that could have been extremely valuable to us going forward for no good reason.
Pettersson's value is not the same, and I'd take issue with the idea that we've been doing "very well" since Sprong was moved. Over the last 3 games we got worked by the Hawks, beat a woefully undermanned Bruins team, then squeaked by the Kings after blowing a 2 goal lead. It's been a rollercoaster - we've not been doing "very well" relative to our standard of previous years, or IMO what we'd have been capable of with the Sprong we're seeing in Anaheim with one of Crosby, Malkin, or Brassard.
You know I would have given Sprong chances in that spot, so I agree with this to a point. But I still say that IF we just had those openings from the start, things would have been different. Because we don't have a spot for him when we're healthy, it was really easy for Sully to write Sprong off early. Then add in Sprong doing himself no favors in the 4th line role and Sully's opinions were reinforced even more. So by the time those openings came up, Sully's mind was already made up. But if we needed a top 9 RW going in to the year, I believe Sprong would have been given a legit chance there. So as I said, this is the part of how it was handled that I disagree with. But I still see what Sully was thinking, and it goes beyond "I don't like him personally."I'm not saying it's the same, but it doesn't have to be.
We had openings. Sprong wasn't denied opportunity because we were logjammed with better top 9 performers, he was denied opportunity because the coach didn't like his style of play and thought a struggling vet, no matter how unproductive, was a better/safer top 9 option...without giving him an honest shot with the sort of reasonable prerequisites Carlyle outlined. Now we're seeing why that can be a narrow and self-defeating mindset.
So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.
It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?
I don’t get what you end game is?
I really really really don't think his value was tanked. We traded a 2nd round wing prospect for a 2nd round D prospect. Both are cheap and young. Both are good prospects.Sprong tanked his own value. The fact we got more than a mid rd pick and a warm body was a miracle. Considering a guy like Zykov was waiver bait a week prior.
So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.
It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?
I don’t get what you end game is?
It's the Sprong thread...for discussing Sprong-related things, including but not limited to why it was a mistake to move him without putting him in a position to succeed, so that we might learn something the next time and evaluate things differently.
Why do you keep discussing it? Nobody's holding a gun to your head, though you did seem much happier when posting his P/G just a short time ago.
You know I would have given Sprong chances in that spot, so I agree with this to a point. But I still say that IF we just had those openings from the start, things would have been different. Because we don't have a spot for him when we're healthy, it was really easy for Sully to write Sprong off early. Then add in Sprong doing himself no favors in the 4th line role and Sully's opinions were reinforced even more. So by the time those openings came up, Sully's mind was already made up. But if we needed a top 9 RW going in to the year, I believe Sprong would have been given a legit chance there. So as I said, this is the part of how it was handled that I disagree with. But I still see what Sully was thinking, and it goes beyond "I don't like him personally."
And we aren't seeing anything right now. Sprong doing well on the Ducks for 5 games doesn't change the fact that he wasn't likely to jump Horny or Kessel on the depth chart. We would have still been looking to trade a RW. Maybe it wouldn't have been Sprong. But then we most likely wouldn't have gotten an NHL ready cheap contract like we got back. And considering our RW situation vs our D situation, I would rather have a cheap young D than a cheap young RW. The RW's are great, and the D is a hot mess. So you can keep disagreeing with me on the trade value, but I think this was a good trade for us. It's considerably better than I would have guessed we'd have gotten this summer. I figured it would be a pick or someone else's "needs a change of scenery" prospect. Instead it's another team's position surplus prospect.
But, I’ve been discussing what Sprong is doing now. Not what should’ve or could’ve happened. It just seems pointless to me.
I think a coach prematurely making up his mind on a talented 21 year old after putting him in a garbage situation is a serious problem. That doesn't have anything to do with Sullivan's feelings about Sprong as a person, but Sullivan's ability to recognize different types of talent in the org and exploit it by putting them in position to succeed.
People have made a point of talking about how Pettersson could be a Dumo-type, but that seems like a best-case scenario. If Sprong becomes a 25-30 goal scorer in short order, Pettersson had better be as good as Dumo within a similar timeframe, otherwise we got hosed - and I say this fully understanding the differences in vacuum value between wingers and defensemen. The former seems more likely than the latter to me, based on where each of them is right now.
And we just disagree. I think you're way overstating Sprong's value.I don't agree that it would have been good value to move Sprong for Pettersson in the summer, coming off of their respective seasons. JR did get better value than I thought he would after Sullivan buried him though.
So, your point is we tanked Sprong’s value.
It’s over now. Why do you keep discussing it?
I don’t get what you end game is?